https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197505
Ross Lagerwall <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(rosslagerwall@gma | |il.com) | --- Comment #7 from Ross Lagerwall <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #5) > > libnfs-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > > That's some bug in the fedora-review tool. Probably it cannot handle the .so > symlink. > > > > libnfs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > It's just a warning, and often those are irrelevant, but the libnfs headers > only contain very brief comments, if at all. There is no API documentation. > > The README points at individual example source files, which are not packaged > [yet]. > > I'm not aware of any packaging guidelines for this scenario. There's only > the "should" from > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation > > | Any relevant documentation included in the source distribution should > | be included in the package in the proper documentation directory. > > Source files are not really documentation, but if treating examples as > documentation, for libnfs, that could mean anything such as shipping the > examples' C sources in -devel %doc (the thing I'd find reasonable) or even > creating a GPLv3+ -examples subpackage (that would be overhead IMO). > > Sure, the src.rpm will be available, too, but referring to the examples > without packaging them is a minor flaw. > > What's your opinion on that? > Yes, I think that putting the examples' C sources in -devel %doc would be the best approach. So should I do that when adding the package to the SCM system? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
